When Leftists pass ridiculous legislation, they have the luxury of calling it whatever they want - even if it will do exactly the opposite. As long as you are willing to lie, and the media is willing to be your propaganda machine, you can basically get away with it.
That is, of course, what we have with the Inflation Reduction Act.
When Kamala Harris was asked what her favorite part of the Inflation Reduction Act was, she said it was the part about electric school buses. We all know intuitively that "electric school buses" will not reduce inflation. In fact, once you analyze the cost of converting to electric school buses, you realize it will add to inflation.
And so it is with the rest of the bill. At absolute best, some provisions may be inflation neutral. As far as I know, there is nothing in the bill that can make any claim about reducing inflation. In fact, the absolute best way to increase inflation is to have the federal government spend more money - which is exactly what this bill does. It spends - wastes - a lot more money.
Every expert who has looked at this piece of crap has said that, to the extent it has any impact on inflation, it will be to increase it, not reduce it.
You probably knew that already.
Here's something you may not have focused on:
When bills are reviewed for their impact, the analysts (the CBO or whoever) have to make certain assumptions.
One of the important assumptions would relate to the 87,000 additional IRS agents. Presumably, an IRS agent currently brings in more incremental tax revenue than he or she takes home in salary and benefits. They reduce the net cost of the federal government. For example, if an IRS agent makes $100,000/year in salary and benefits, but finds an additional $250,000 of taxes each year, they make the government $150,000.
Imagine the swamp creatures in the Biden administration brainstorming as they put this bill together:
"Man, this wish list is already so expensive! How are we going to sell this fricking thing to the public when inflation is already out of control?!"
"Yeah, and we still haven't added in the cost of the Federal Gestapo we want."
"First of all, stop calling it the 'Federal Gestapo'!!"
"Speaking of labels, what are we going to call this porker of a bill? .... hmmmm .... Wait!! I know it's crazy, but how about we call the thing ... 'The Inflation Reduction Act'!"
"That's hilarious! ... what the f, why not?!"
"... and how about this idea? I know we want about 50,000 federal storm-troupers, and that this bill is already way too expensive, but what if we called them IRS agents?!!"
"What does that help?"
"Think about it - in terms of budgeting, IRS agents are better than free - they are assumed to bring in more revenue than they cost!! The more we put in the bill, the cheaper the bill is!! Screw it!! Let's put in 70,000!!"
"How about 100,000?! The more the better!!"
"Hold up. If we make the number too ridiculous, even the morons at CNN will eventually figure out - and have to admit - there will be diminishing returns per agent. Plus, we don't want to freak the public out too much. At something below six digits maybe they won't realize that these new agents will be squeezing blood out of the middle-class American turnip.* They don't know big business already gets audited every year."
"Let's use 87,000."
"You are such an evil genius!!"
"Thank you. Yes, I am."
* The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that a majority of the tax costs from the Inflation Reduction Act will be borne by households earning less than $400,000. Remember, that is NOT what the administration told us.